A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement -- Evidence of attorney -- One of the purchasers and plaintiff in his suit for specific performance throughout present in the transaction held the Power of Attorney from the other plaintiffs – He was examined as PW-1 in each of the suits whether in his capacity as plaintiff or as Power of Attorney from other plaintiffs -- It was not necessary for each of the plaintiffs in separate suits to appear and prove the transaction -- Trial Court had examined this aspect and had found favour with the plaintiffs – Adverse inference drawn by the High Court for the reason that the plaintiffs did not enter the witness box to prove the Agreement to Sell, was completely misplaced.

(Para 28)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance of agreement – Limitation -- Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 did not mention any date for the performance, nor did owner refused at any point of time and soon after the death of owner in December 1992, the plaintiffs having come to know of the mutation proceedings by her legal heirs, they proceeded to file the suit, after giving notice in May 1995, which was well within a period of three years -- Second part of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would be applicable once there was no date fixed for performance in the Agreement to Sell.

(Para 27, 30)

C. Agreement to sell – Possession with original title deed – Effect of -- A purchaser who has paid the full consideration and received the original title deeds from the seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances -- Any possession taken by any other party thereafter would be unauthorised and illegal.

(Para 32)

D. Violation of Injunction order – Alienation of the property in violation of the injunction order -- Sale deed would be a void document.

(Para 33)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Limitation prescribed by Article 54 sets in from the date when the petitioner received the reply refusing performance.

(Para 31)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 16(c) – Specific performance of agreement – Readiness and willingness – Purchaser paid a sum of Rs.11,30,00 as earnest money and paid Rs.13,00,000 on the same day by cheque and paid another Rs. 5,00,000 by Demand Draft -- If the petitioner was unwilling to perform the contract, he would not have paid nearly 75 percent of the sale consideration -- Petitioner with the payment of the additional sum above the earnest money, has proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract -- Fit case for to exercise discretion to direct specific performance.

(Para 42)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis panders -- Doctrine of lis pendens that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act encapsulates, bars the transfer of a suit property during the pendency of litigation -- The only exception to the principle is when it is transferred under the authority of the court and on terms imposed by it -- Where one of the parties to the suit transfers the suit property (or a part of it) to a third-party, the latter is bound by the result of the proceedings even if he did not have notice of the suit or proceeding.

(Para 47)

D. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Object of doctrine of lis pendens -- Purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that the process of the court is not subverted and rendered infructuous --  In the absence of the doctrine of lis pendens, a defendant could defeat the purpose of the suit by alienating the suit property.

(Para 49)

E. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Lis pendens – Review -- Pendency means -- Review proceedings were “instituted” within the period of limitation of thirty days –  Doctrine of lis pendens kicks in at the stage of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by this Court -- Argument of the respondents that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply because the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective state cannot be accepted.

(Para 49)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Adverse possession – Plea of – Permissive possession -- Once the defendant himself pleaded that he is in possession under the agreement to sell and to retain possession relies on the part performance of contract to sell, he cannot plead adverse possession – Held, possession of a proposed vendee  under agreement to sell always is a permissive possession under the vendor till he pleads and proves that he gave up the permissive possession and re-entered into possession which was open and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner.

(Para 3, 28)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18, 19 -- Offer of possession made on 04.02.2014 -- ADA issued reminders to the appellant on 22.09.2014, 21.11.2014 and 17.01.2018 -- Additionally, ADA accepted the appellant's payment of Rs. 3,43,178/- on 20.06.2019 without any reservations -- NCDRC correctly applied Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which extend the limitation period where part payments or acknowledgments are made -- Consequently, the cause of action continued to exist, and the filing of the complaint in July 2020 is within the limitation period.

(Para 16)

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Pecuniary jurisdiction -- Respondent ADA challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC, contending that the total payment made by the appellant amounted to Rs. 59,97,178/-, which was less than Rs. 1 crore -- Claim made by the appellant also included compensation for mental agony, harassment, and loss of income, which brought the total claim well above Rs. 1 crore -- In consumer disputes, the value of the claim is determined not just by the amount deposited but by the aggregate relief sought, which includes compensation and other claims -- NCDRC rightly held that it had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and this Court affirms that finding.

(Para 18, 19)

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 19(10) -- Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 2010), Section 4(5) -- Offer of possession -- Completion certificate -- Firefighting clearance certificate – Requirement of -- A developer must obtain these certificates before offering possession -- Possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances -- ADA’s failure to provide the required certificates justifies the appellant’s refusal to take possession --  Entire amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be refunded with interest 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of refund, the ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs only) to the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ – Delay and laches – Seniority list challenged after 13 years – Petitioner is seeking entitlement to agitate his belated claim on the strength of directions issued by the Court in other case -- Assertion of petitioner that he has a fresh cause of action for filing the instant petition after judgment cannot be sustained -- Unexplained delay and laches in invoking Article 226 jurisdiction has repeatedly been held to be a serious impediment for grant of relief -- Claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained – Writ dismissed.

(Para 11-23)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Schedule - Article 54 -- Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed  in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest.

(Para 9-12)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Civil suit for possession of agricultural land -- Ejectment of tenant -- Denying title of landlord – Effect of – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- If defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement by taking a specific plea to the effect, that will be sufficient to hold that they had denounced the title of the plaintiff -- Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Effect of – Finding beyond pleadings – Permissibility of -- At no point of time, defendants ever claimed to be tenants on the suit land -- Their consistent stand taken in the written statement is that they are in possession of the suit land and had perfected their title by way of adverse possession -- Their plea of adverse possession has not been found as correct -- The First Appellate Court on its own, made out a new case for the defendants by holding them to be tenants on the suit land -- The First Appellate Court could not travel beyond the pleadings of the parties -- Even the evidence, led beyond the pleadings of the parties, could not be appreciated in that direction -- Suit decreed.

(Para 11, 13)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Arbitration award – Challenge to – Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to challenging an arbitral award u/s 34 of the Act – It can be made within three months and the period can only be extended for a further period of thirty days -- The use of the words “but not thereafter” in the proviso to Section 34 makes it clear that extension cannot be beyond thirty days.

(Para 4)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 18 – Recovery suit -- Acknowledgement of debt – Cheque dishonored – Postdated cheques -- Extension of limitation -- Payment made by the petitioner/ defendant through cheques, which got dishonoured, would tantamount to an acknowledgment of debt and liability and the period of limitation would stand extended by virtue of Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 -- Plea taken by the petitioner/ defendant that certain postdated cheques issued to the respondent/ plaintiff have been misused, does not cut much ice.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 3 -- Limitation – Duty of court -- Even if the plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), Section 42(c) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 113 -- Death of partner – Dissolution of FIR -- Rendition of account – Limitation -- Period of limitation for filing a suit for rendition of account is three years from the date of dissolution -- Firm dissolved in year 1984 by virtue of death of partner and thus, the suit could only have been instituted within a period of three years from that event -- Suit filed in the year 1996 was clearly time-barred.

(Para 20)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 19 -- Recovery suit – Time barred debt -- Extension of limitation -- Part payment after expiry of limitation -- Last delivery of the goods took place on 04.07.1988 -- Period of three years would come to an end on 04.07.1991 -- Any payment alleged to have been made beyond the said period would not restart the limitation period u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(Para 8)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Objections against award of Arbitration -- Condonation of delay – Whether provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to objections filed under the Act of 1996 – Held, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, is ousted by proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Suit for compensation – Limitation – Rejection of plaint -- Exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are drastic ones and a duty is caste on the Court to determine as to whether the plaint, on a plain reading along with document annexed thereto, discloses a cause of action -- No other document is to be seen at this stage -- Question of limitation would be a mix question of law and fact, the same cannot be decided in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 8 and Rule 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Dismissed in default – Delay in Restoration application supported by affidavit – Condonation of delay without application – Ld. trial Court, after considering the averments of the parties and guided by the basic tenets of law that the rights of the parties should be examined on merits and not fettered by technicalities, and to advance the cause of justice, allowed the application and restored the suit – Held, Ld. trial Court adopted a correct and judicious approach, by permitting the parties to have their rival claims decided on merits.

(Para 9-15)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Delay defeats equity -- Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Allotment of distributorship – Writ jurisdiction – Delay and laches -- Writ petitioner was a rival applicant for grant of LPG distributorship – Appellant was held to be successful by and allotted distributorship by virtue of draw of lots in 2014 – Same was challenged in the year 2017 and thereby the writ petitioner had allowed his right if at all if any to be drifted away -- Being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the appellant not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, no reason to substitute the court’s view to that of the experts/ Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion – Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, LPA Bench allowed the writ – Order of the Learned Division Bench set aside and order of Ld. Single Judge restored.

(Para 6, 11-14)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 64, 65 -- Suit for possession – Limitation of 12 years -- Adverse possession -- Defendant/ appellant has not set up the plea that his possession was adverse -- In the earlier case, defendant took the plea that suit property was given by his father in the family settlement, which, he failed to prove -- Possession of defendant is permissive possession and suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation -- An owner of the property cannot be deprived to get possession of the property.

(Para 19)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Right of subsequent purchaser – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Award was announced on 22.01.1992 -- Possession of the acquired land including the disputed land was taken over by HSVP vide Rapat dated 26.01.1992 -- Petitioner purchased the disputed land vide sale deed dated 15.04.1997 -- Sale transaction after finalization of the acquisition proceedings would not confer any right or benefit on the petitioner -- Any transaction thereafter would be void ab initio – Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession once he claims ownership/ title on the basis of sale deed -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 – Appointment of Arbitrator -- Time barred claim -- Petitioner waited for more than 12 years for the respondent to construct building -- It would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the 1996 Act or so-called time-barred claims where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation in spite of the parties being in constant communication with each other for settlement of the claims -- Article 55 to the Schedule of The Limitation Act contemplates continuing breach of a contract -- Respondent withholding the money without due compliance of the MoU and failing to return the money to the petitioner for several years on one pretext or the other cannot argue the point of limitation particularly after having nominated its Arbitrator.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Suit/ Plea by plaintiff for adverse possession – Maintainability of -- High Court allowed the second appeal only on the ground that a plea of the adverse possession cannot be taken by the plaintiff -- Review application also dismissed – Settled law is that a plaintiff can seek declaration of title by adverse possession -- Judgment and order of the High Court in RSA and Review Application set aside – Appeals allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Service matter -- Stoppage of one annual increment – Limitation – Order of stoppage of one annual increment of the respondent with cumulative effect was passed on 19.12.1983, whereas suit for declaring the said order void abinitio, illegal, beyond the scope of rule of natural justice and the service rules was filed on 13.01.1990 i.e. after a period of more than six years, which is hopelessly time barred.

(Para 15)

A. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession -- Defendant-respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords -- There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession.

(Para 9.4)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 Sch-I -- Adverse possession -- Plaintiff-appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966 -- Dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant-respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior to it -- Suit was filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975 -- Period of 12 years for perfecting rights on the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time -- Even if it is assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse.

(Para 8-9.5)

A. Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Land acquisition case – Compensation – Limitation -- Whether taking over of possession of the land way back in the year 1969 disentitles the petitioners from claiming compensation – Held, no amount of delay can come in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court for enforcement of their constitutional right to property – Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award already passed by the Collector – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 14-23)

B. Constitution of India, Article 31, 300A, 370 – Right to property – Delay in claiming compensation -- Right to property was a fundamental right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, as such, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have waived their right to property – At present, the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Even if the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right, still then it continues to be a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law -- Denial of this right to a person constitutes a continuing cause of action and, therefore, no amount of delay and laches would extinguish the right to property of a person.

(Para 18)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession by State – Permissibility of -- State cannot claim adverse possession in respect of the property belonging to private persons -- Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the property in question has vested in them because of their long possession over the same.

(Para 19)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 – Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance -- Limitation -- Period of limitation in a suit for specific performance of contract when a specific date is fixed for performance is three years and if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

(Para 11)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 -- Agreement to sell -- Compensation for the breach of any contract -- Limitation -- Period of limitation is three years when the contract is broken or when there are successive breaches when the breach is in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or when it ceases -- There is concealment of material fact on the part of appellants/ defendants that their land was already under the master plan thus covered under R Zone, Green Belt and National Highway – Respondent/ plaintiff came to know about this condition subsequently and period of limitation will start from the said contingency.

(Para 11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 17 – Limitation – Fraud – Suit for possession/ joint land -- Judgment and decree of 1982 – Challenged in 2014 -- It is a positive case of the plaintiffs that they got the knowledge of the alleged fraudulent decree in the year 2013 -- Defendants failed to lead the evidence to prove that the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the decree --  Both the Courts, on appreciation of evidence, had found that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation -- Plaintiffs are co-sharers/ co-owners with the defendants, can be granted a decree for joint possession and can apply for delivery of the actual possession after the land is partitioned – Decree modified.

(Para 5-13)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197, 468(2)(c), 470(3), 482 – Complaint under Insecticides Act -- Limitation – Cognizance of complaint -- Sanction Period consumed for obtaining the consent of the State Government to launch the prosecution is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period -- If period of 5 months and 17 days is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, the complaint instituted after 5 years, 6 days from the date of commencement of limitation is beyond limitation period – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed for the reasons that complaint itself is not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

(Para 12-22)

Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1982 -- Staff Accountability Policy 2011, Clause 9.2 --  Dismissal of Bank employee -- Charge-sheet after 4 years -- Limitation – Respondent bank issued charge sheet without alleging fraud or mala fide, thus, extended period of limitation could not be invoked -- Bank was bound to initiate proceedings within four years from the date of alleged offence – Dismissal order set aside – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 1, 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 3(2) – Death of plaintiff – Limitation -- Abatement of suit --  Since there is an amendment made to Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (Amendment by High Court of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh), limitation period of 90 days would not be applicable -- Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner’s application and has brought on record the legal representatives of deceased/ plaintiff no.1 -- No error in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference by High Court – Revision dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 54 -- Suit for specific performance – Limitation -- Earnest money of Rs.1,000/- was paid out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- -- Appellants was to apply for permission to sell in 8 days of ATS – From the ninth (9th) day onwards a right accrued to the respondents to move Court -- ATS is dated 31.07.1975 and the suit was filed on 01.01.1981 -- Limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years – Suit dismissed -- Lump-sum refund quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-.

(Para 5-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 59 -- Time barred claim – Amendment of plaint -- By amendment plaintiff wanted to challenge the relinquishment deed for which the limitation is 03 years – Relinquishment deed is dated 25.11.2014, application for amendment filed on 17.03.2020 – As a general rule, the Court should decline amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of application – Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the amendment – In revision impugned order set aside.

(Para 1, 7-11)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 21 -- Revision – Delay of 854 day – Condonation of delay – District Forum allowed the complaint directing the HUDA to issue the allotment letter – Appeal dismissed by State Commission – HUDA had taken a decision that the Revision Petition not be filed – When notice was issued to the HUDA in the execution proceedings, the Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 854 days – NCDRC was of the opinion that such delay cannot be condoned – No reason to interfere with the impugned order.

(Para 2-5)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Transfer of property -- Sale deed – Non-entering of  mutation – Effect of -- Mutation is merely an entry in the revenue record, which reflects the factum of transfer of property, however, the ownership is transferred by way of sale deed -- Hence, failure on the part of the plaintiff to get the land mutated in his favour would not be relevant.

(Para 7)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, Section 27 – Suit for possession – Limitation -- Owner can file a suit for possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 till the time, the defendant proves his title by way of the adverse possession.

(Para 8)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Suit for possession -- Sale deed – Purchase of residential plot -- Requirement of the plaintiff to file a suit for partition – Property is not an agricultural land -- It is in the form of residential plots -- Plaintiff as well as defendant have purchased the specific plots -- Plaintiff has claimed possession of plot, which has been decreed by both the Courts below -- No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Delay of 52 day in appeal – Condonation of delay -- Rights in immovable property -- When the parties were litigating with regard to the right over immovable properties, the substantial rights were to be decided between the parties -- Delay could have been condoned and the appeal could have been decided on merits -- Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when the delay was not inordinate is not justified -- High Court was also not justified in dismissing the appeal only on the ground that there was no question of law -- Delay in filing the appeal before the lower Appellate Court condoned – Matter remitted back to Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 3-8)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 -- Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Delay of 5190 days in appeal – Condonation of delay -- By applying the principle of parity, the land owners/applicants being similarly situated, are entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period they failed to approach the Court after the decision in the reference Court – Delay of 5190 days in filing the appeal condoned -- Appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e. 5190 days.

(Para 1, 2)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Proceedings u/s 47A of Indian Stamp Act -- Limitation -- Sale deed executed in 2011, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2020, after about more than 9 years – Held, proceedings can be initiated within 3 years from the execution of the sale deed – Proceedings initiated clearly barred by limitation and could not have been initiated – Petition accepted, impugned order as well as the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 12(2), 18 -- Acquisition of land – Award of Collector -- Delay in Reference – Dismissal on limitation -- Power of Reference Court -- Reference u/s 18 of the 1894 Act, involves substantial rights of the landowners, the same can only be declined on the point of limitation, in case, the Reference Court finds that the landowner was either present or represented before the Land Acquisition Collector, at the time of announcement of the award or notice u/s 12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever served upon him, informing him about the contents of the award.

(Para 9)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator -- Limitation -- Cause of action -- If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there -- In such a case, it is not open to a party to sit tight and not to file an application for settlement of dispute of his right, which had been infringed, within the time provided by the Limitation Act, and, allow his right to be extinguished by lapse of time, and thereafter, to wait for another cause of action and then file an application u/s 11 of the Act 1996 -- In such a case, such an application would mean an application for revival of a right, which had long been extinguished under the Act 1963 and is, therefore, dead for all purposes -- Such proceedings would not be maintainable and would obviously be met by the plea of limitation under Article 137 of the Act 1963.

(Para 58)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation -- Cause of action – Extension of limitation -- Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the wrongful encashment of bank guarantee vide letter dated 16.02.2016 and for wrongful imposition of liquidated damages -- Respondent on 26.09.2016, deducted the amount towards recovery of the liquidated damages -- Requisite amount was credited into the Government account -- This was the end of the matter -- To say that even thereafter, the petitioner kept negotiating with the respondent in anticipation of some amicable settlement would not save the period of limitation -- When the bank guarantee came to be encashed in the year 2016 and the requisite amount stood transferred to the Government account that was the end of the matter -- This “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation.

(Para 59-62)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 137 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation -- Cause of action – Negotiation will not postpone cause of action -- Negotiations may continue even for a period of ten years or twenty years after the cause of action had arisen -- Mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation -- The Legislature has prescribed a limit of three years for the enforcement of a claim and this statutory time period cannot be defeated on the ground that the parties were negotiating.

(Para 63)

Covid-19 – Limitation -- Where the limitation of a case was expiring during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, limitation in such a situation was to start from 01.03.2022 and a period of 90 days was to be granted to file the necessary application/appeal etc. -- Revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 12.10.2020 -- Application for restoration was filed on 13.12.2021, dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2022 – Orders fall in the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 -- Dismissal of the restoration application on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner is against law and deserves to be set aside – Order set aside, Commissioner directed to decide the application for restoration afresh after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law. Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 (SC) relied.

(Para 5-7)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 31(5), 34 -- Arbitration award – Limitation to file objections --  Ex-parte award on 13.6.2008, objections filed on 2.6.2009 – Objections dismissed as time barred – Limitation to file objections starts from the date of receipt of the award -- Impugned order passed without recording a finding that signed copy of the award was delivered to the appellant – Order set aside, matter remitted back to decide objections afresh.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Counter claim for possession -- Adverse possession can be claimed only against true owner -- Plaintiff having taken the plea of adverse possession could not have denied the title of defendants -- Plaintiff having failed to prove issue No.1 (adverse possession) in his favour, was bound to fail in his pursuits to contest the claim put forth by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of counter claim.

(Para 4, 10, 11)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Res-judicata -- Finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove acquisition of title over the suit land by way of adverse possession will operate as res judicata between the same parties in all other proceedings in which the same issue arises.

(Para 9)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – Onus to proof -- It is trite law that once the title of the property has been upheld namely a finding has been recorded by a judgment and decree in the name of plaintiff in an earlier suit, in such circumstances, the onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lay on the defendant.

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Resjudicata -- In the earlier round of litigation direction to the defendant-respondents was to remove at their own expenses the L.T. pole installed in the courtyard of the plaintiff-appellant within a month -- However, as per the undertaking, it was made clear that the plaintiff-appellant would not be entitled to any compensation for the transformer and poles erected in his property – Plaintiff-appellant wanted to reagitate the matter which is directly and substantially the same as in the previous litigation -- Plaintiff-appellant not able to convince that the findings in the earlier round of litigation would not operate as res judicata -- There is extra-ordinary delay of 2936 days in filing the appeal for which no cogent reasons are forthcoming – Appeal dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

(Para 6-8)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 136 -- Execution of decree – Limitation of 12 years – Cause of action -- Limitation period would commence only with the decree becoming enforceable and thus is capable of being executed -- Compromise decree dated 26.04.1960 -- Cause of action arise on 31.03.1994, period of limitation will begin only with effect from 31.03.1994 -- Execution Application made on 17.07.1995 held to be within Limitation.

(Para 9-11)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(a)(i), 27(d) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 -- Complaint after expiry of limitation period of three years – Quashing of complaint  --- Maximum punishment would be for a period of two years -- Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. bars the concerned Court from taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – Report of the Laboratory came into the hands of the Drugs Inspector on 02.07.2015 and thus, the limitation expired on 01.07.2018 while complaint was filed on 05.02.2019 i.e. approximately after 7 months when period of limitation was over – Complaint and all other consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession – No evidence by defendant No.2-appellant to prove that her possession was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, i.e. peaceful, open and continuous -- A person seeking to establish his adverse possession has to show that his possession is adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner -- It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period – Defendant No.2-appellant failed to lead any substantial evidence to prove her plea of adverse possession -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Arbitration award – Objection after 120 days – Condonation of delay -- Application u/s 34 of the Act beyond the period of 120 days i.e. 90 days of limitation and 30 days period -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable -- Delay beyond 30 days after expiry of limitation period cannot be condoned.

(Para 6)

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016), Section 16 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 5 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 1 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Written statement filed after one year – Application for placing on record rejected -- Revisional jurisdiction – By Sec.16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure stands amended, which mandates that the defendant(s) has to file the written statement within 120 days from the date of service of summons, failing which the defendant(s) right to file the written statement will stand forfeited and the Court shall not accept the written statement on record – Held, there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96 -- Decree – Delay in filing appeal – Condonation of delay -- Limitation would run from the date of passing of the decree and not from any date prior to passing of the same – Seeker of condonation of delay is not required to explain the period of his absence during the trial, what is required is the period of delay which runs as per the Limitation Act and in this case the period of limitation had started from the date of decree, therefore, any delay after explaining of such limitation was only to be explained by the appellant.

(Para 15)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 56(2) -- Arrears of electricity bill – Limitation of 2 years -- Connection of the defendant was declared PDCO on 18.3.2010 ordered to be disconnected permanently vide order dated 18.3.2010 -- Thereafter, on 22.3.2010 an amount of Rs.87,972/- has been shown outstanding against the defendant and no further electricity supplied to the defendant after 18.3.2010 – Trial court dismissed the suit by holding that limitation to file the suit shall be counted from 18.3.2010 when the connection of the defendant was declared PDCO and when this amount became due and the suit has been filed on 7.5.2012 i.e. beyond the limitation period of two years -- Ld. First Appellate Court upheld the order – High court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Courts below -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-18)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, 113 -- Suit for declaration and possession -- Limitation – Limitation to file a suit for possession on the basis of title is twelve years -- Declaratory relief for title of the property is sine qua non for seeking possession over it -- The former, therefore, cannot be held to take away the essential characteristics of a suit for possession -- One of the reliefs sought of declaration will not mean that the prescribed period of limitation will not be applicable.

(Para 2, 8-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 149 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay in appeal – Condonation of delay – Insufficient funds for court fee – Ground of -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay -- It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 2(4), 118 – Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Private company is not an ‘agriculturist’ -- Approval was not given by the State Government and then the Company assigned his right to the plaintiff who thereafter filed the suit for specific performance -- No specific clause in the “Agreement to Sell”, which says that in case the purchaser fails to obtain required permission from the State Government, it could assign its rights to an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and the seller therefore would not have any objection in executing the Sale deed in favour of such an assignee -- No question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff – Dismissal of suit upheld.

(Para 11-16)

C. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 118 -- Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings -- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(Para 17)